[N]ot a lot separates Obama's views from Clinton's. So why Obama?
It is precisely the excitement that we see in the candidate and his supporters in their demands for change. This promises to alter the political landscape and dynamics for the better, energizing youth for service and involvement as we haven't seen in a very long time.
In Clinton, there is the potential for déjà vu all over again. Right or wrong, she is a polarizing figure who excites all the wrong kinds of political passions.
And even if she didn't, her vote on the Iraq war cannot be explained away as not realizing that the president would take that ball (and blank check) and run with it.
Yes, she has been tried. And much of the antagonism she engenders in the right is simply irrational.
But even without this Clinton baggage and on their individual merits, Obama still has the edge. His experience as community organizer, state legislator, U.S. senator and campaigner who took a dream and became a credible contender measures up well against Clinton's experience as poverty lawyer, first lady and U.S. senator.
The party would be well-served with either candidate, and the historical implications are huge with each.
But in Obama, there is a potential for meaningful change that does not exist with any other candidate.
In sum, the Editorial Board is under the Obama "change and hope' spell.
The Board declares that Hillary and Obama are both qualified and "there is only the tiniest sliver of daylight separating Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issues."
So why Obama? It's that Obama excitement that has seduced the Journal Sentinel Board.
How utterly superficial!
The reasons for the Board's endorsement of Obama are as short on substance as an Obama speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment